New US diplomacy - Part One

Barack Obama's foreign policy challenges

After Bush's foreign policy, the American nation wanted a change (it was not a coincidence, that change was Obama's campaign motto). But what are the changes that we can accept from the new US president? The most exigent problem of the new administration is the handling of the Iraqi war. During his campaign Obama, said that until the summer of 2010 all the American troops will be withdrawn. In his opinion the real danger comes from the Taliban, so America's anti-terrorist war has to be fought in Afghanistan


By TAMAS TORO
from Timisoara, ROMANIA


In the history of the United States there where very few presidents who occupied the presidential chair in critical times, like these. Barack Obama besides inheriting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq has to deal with the Israel-Pakistani conflict, the Iranian and its nuclear power program, and we don't have to forget the resurgent Russia, as well.

It is an important fact that Obama's presidency comes after an 8 year period of the Democratic Party's opposition. After Bush's foreign policy, the American nation wanted a change (it was not a coincidence, that change was Obama's campaign motto). But what are the changes that we can accept from the new US president? The most exigent problem of the new administration is the handling of the Iraqi war. During his campaign Obama, said that until the summer of 2010 all the American troops will be withdrawn. In his opinion the real danger comes from the Taliban, so America's anti-terrorist war has to be fought in Afghanistan.

Democrat presidents and the 20th Century's biggest conflicts

Committed to the Democratic Party's tradition he doesn't want the United States to fight this war alone. Let us rewind history for a moment. The First World War was fought by the Democratic Party's representative Woodrow Wilson. He tried to protect the American nation from an actual conflict, and postponed the U.S.'s implication as long as he could. His strategy was built around coalitions with the European powers. During the Second World War, the president of the United States was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democratic Party member as well. He entered the "big game" by declaring war on Germany and after Pearl Harbor went into war with Japan. He's main concern was also Europe, so he built coalitions with the Western European countries. Once again the USA had chosen to focus on Europe instead of the Pacific.

Continuing the Democratic Party's tradition: strong relations with Europe

Now Barack Obama is in much greater trouble than his predecessors were. Although the European powers supported the US in the "war against terror", that is the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the Iraqi war was too much for Europe, so they (the European powers) stepped back. Step by step America found itself isolated by the European powers, thanks to the Bush administration's foreign policy. On August the 1st 2008, Barack Obama said that the US has to get out of Iraq, because the right battlefield is Afghanistan. But this war can't be fought alone, so America needs to have strong relations with Europe (as we seen it this is a Democratic Party fundamental since the First World War). Thus Obama's first big "match" will be played in Europe with the European powers. Bringing them together is not an easy job to do. Although Europe has no objection to the Afghanistan war, but there is no consensus handling Russia. Obviously Germany will not confront Russia because it depends of the Russian energy. France on the other hand, has a lack military capability. Let us see Obama's future confrontations.

A hard nut to crack: Afghanistan

Obama's number one assignment is to bring the Europeans together and form a strong coalition, which will help America in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. It is important to draw a distinction between the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. First of all al Qaeda is not an Afghan terrorist group, its members come from more Islamic countries, and the Taliban was/is in alliance with it. After al Qaeda retreated to Pakistan, the U.S. strategy was to isolate this region. We have to say that the Petraeus (Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, he is the chief commander of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq) strategy worked, because from now on al Qaeda has an elementary problem: they cannot replace their losses, as a result they became inefficient. The situation is much different with the Taliban. Although the anti-Taliban government supported by the U.S. is strong in the big cities, but the Taliban stands strong on its feet in the rural area. So the war against the Taliban became a guerilla war. Another important fact is that the Afghan people don't want to be on the Taliban's "black list", so they shelter them and provide them information. So they can and will recruit large forces. Obviously the US strategy was to set pressure on the Taliban to open the doors for negotiations. But the Taliban, I believe, cannot be broken that easy. Like Mullah Mohamad Rasul senior Taliban leader said, on Al Jaseera channel, they will not give up fighting, they are getting stronger and stronger, and they will not negotiate nor with Karzai government, nor the U.S. Even if this strategy would have worked, the Mumbai terrorist attack troubled the US strategy.

The consequences of Mumbai

It may seem incomprehensible, but the truth is that the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, the Afghanistan war and the US strategy in the war against the Taliban are in complex relations with each other. India is blaming Pakistan for the terrorist attacks, so the Indian-Pakistani relations got more polarized. The consequences are that Pakistan already started to regroup its military troops from the Afghan border to its Eastern boundaries. This is the point where the Americans problems start. Now the American weapon and fuel supplies are transported by ships to Karachi (Pakistan) and from there on land to Kandahar and Kabul. Obviously these supplies where often attacked by the Taliban, so the routes where secured by the Pakistani army. Now that the Pakistani army is shifted to the Eastern border, the US has to find an alternative supply route, or mediates between India and Pakistan, hoping that it tranquilizes the conflict and in the future profit from the Pakistani army's presence on the Afghan border. Since the Pakistan-Indi conflict is much older, probably this will not work, so for the US it remains the finding of an alternative route.

The US has three alternatives:

1. Through the former Soviet Union states, that is Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and then Afghanistan.
2. Cross the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, BUT this would cross Russian territory.
3. On land from Iran to Afghanistan.

Iran-U.S. cooperation could be possible in the future, because both Obama and the Iranian president made gestures towards each other. But in the present this is just theoretical. On the other hand the first two might work. This is the point when Russia appears on the "scene", and things start to be more complicated.

The resurgent Russia

We saw the two alternative supply routes which the US would use to support his troops in Afghanistan. The problem is that in both plans need Russia's approval, and the question is: what the price of Russian cooperation is? In this case Obama will clash in to this "big mountain" called Russia. First of all Dmitri Medvedev can blackmail the US by sabotaging the alternative supply routes, secondly, the EU is dependent of Russian energy (especially Germany). Nobody should think that Russia will not cooperate. He will, for the right price. And what could that price be?

1. Obama and the US does not force Ukraine's and Georgia's NATO membership
2. NATO does not place military facilities in the Baltic states
3. The US passes over to Russia its Central Asian base in Kyrgyzstan
4. Obama withdraws the decision to place ballistic missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Russia showed already twice - in 2006 and now in 2009 - that if it closes down the gas pipes, not just Ukraine but most of the European Union countries will feel the energy crisis.

If we analyze these issues from the Russian part of view it is understandable that they disapprove the existence of NATO military facilities in the Baltic states and Central Asia as well. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia lost many of its strategic territories. So now Putin tries to spread his country's influence upon the former Soviet states. The truth is that Prime-Minister Putin's policy was very effective from a Russian point of view, he achieved several goals. He constantly pressures Ukraine, forced many European states to discuss directly with Russia, and not trough the EU; EU countries had to choose to support Ukraine (what they would normally do) or secure their citizens heating; Germany had to work with Russia, to get Ukraine to agree. So Putin, who can stop the gas flow at any time, has humiliated Ukraine and Europe as well.

The question is, whether the new U.S. administration can collaborate with Russia or not? Russia had an amity relation with the Bush administration (Putin was the first who called the U.S. president after 9/11, and assured him that Russia supports the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda), until the U.S. started to support Ukraine's and Georgia's NATO membership, and Ukraine's "Orange Revolution". Russia interpreted these actions as betrayal. Neither Putin, nor Medvedev doesn't trust the Americans, so if Obama wants to win Russia's trust back he has to play by Medvedev's (actually by Putin's) rules. The first step has been made, former U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger met with Putin in Moscow. Obviously the talks didn't go very well, because Russia announced to continue its defense deals with Iran. So it is Obama's move again. The thing is that he has to move fast, because a bad relation with Russia can and will influence the war in Afghanistan.


(Published: 10.02.2009.)